AFEXA LIFE: Court Approves Class Action Settlements---------------------------------------------------Afexa Life Sciences Inc. disclosed Thursday that the OntarioSuperior Court of Justice has dismissed a proposed Ontario classaction lawsuit in conjunction with its approval of the settlementof all related claims. As part of the settlement and inconjunction with the Ontario Court Order, the Alberta Court ofQueen's Bench has dismissed a parallel proposed Alberta classaction lawsuit. As announced on September 16, 2009, the Companyreached an agreement in principle to settle the proposed lawsuits,which were commenced in Ontario and Alberta in August of 2007against the Company, certain of its officers, former directors andits former auditors.

The settlement agreement provides for the settlement, release anddismissal of all claims asserted against the Company, its formerauditors and the individual proposed defendants and does not inany way contain or constitute any admission of liability by Afexaor its officers, directors or employees. The Company's portion ofthe settlement amounts to $6.6 million which will be fundedthrough insurance coverage.

AMERICAN OIL: Accused in Colo. Suit of Breaching Fiduciary Duty---------------------------------------------------------------Courthouse News Service reports that American Oil & Gas and HessCorp. wrongly orchestrated a merger and failed to considershareholders' interest, a class action claims in Denver FederalCourt.

A copy of the Complaint in Cobb v. American Oil & Gas Inc.,et al., Case No. 10-cv-01833 (D. Colo.), is available at:

ANADARKO PETROLEUM: Murray Frank Files Securities Class Action--------------------------------------------------------------Murray, Frank & Sailer LLP has filed a class action complaint inthe United States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork (case no. 10-cv-5894) on behalf of all individuals andinstitutions who purchased Anadarko Petroleum Corporation publiclytraded securities during the period between June 12, 2009, andJune 9, 2010. The complaint seeks damages for violations of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934.

The complaint names Anadarko Petroleum Corporation, and certainofficers and directors of the Company, as defendants. Thecomplaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants issuedmaterially false and misleading statements regarding the Company'sresults, risk profile, and potential liabilities. Specifically,defendants claimed they had properly reserved for, and insuredagainst, foreseeable drilling related contingencies through theClass Period. Defendants public statements were materially falseand misleading when made because they failed to disclose, amongother things: (a) that there was no effective Oil Spill ResponsePlan for the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon, in which Anadarko is a 25%owner; (b) that BP plc, Anadarko's partner in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon, was implementing drilling procedures that wouldcut costs at the expense of safety, thereby increasing theeconomic risk of a disaster; (c) that the Company lacked adequatesystems of internal, operational or financial controls to maintainadequate insurance reserves or to meet the known or foreseeablerisks associated with its deepwater drilling liabilities; and (d)that defendants lacked any reasonable basis to claim that Anadarkowas operating according to plan, or that Anadarko could achieveguidance sponsored and/or endorsed by defendants. As a result ofdefendants' false statements, Anadarko's securities traded atartificially inflated prices during the Class Period.

On April 20, 2010, the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon rig exploded,killing 11 platform workers and injuring 17 others. In spite ofthis disaster, defendants continued to issue materially false andmisleading statements claiming that the Company would likely incuronly approximately $177.5 million in liability for its part in theMacondo/Deepwater Horizon venture.

On June 1, 2010, the truth concerning Anadarko's business andliabilities was revealed as the public learned that theMacondo/Deepwater Horizon well could not be capped and investorscame to realize there was effectively no plan in place to stop thespill. That day, shares of Anadarko fell more than $10.00 pershare, or approximately 20%, to close at $42.10 per share, on hightrading volume. Later, on June 9, 2010, investors learned of thematerial deficiencies in the Macondo/Deepwater Horizon Oil SpillResponse Plan as well as the Company's liability for over $1billion in clean up costs. This information resulted in anotherdrop in value of Andarko's stock of about 19%.

If you are a member of the class described above, you may move theCourt, not later than August 23, 2010, to serve as Lead Plaintifffor the Class. A Lead Plaintiff is a representative chosen by theCourt who acts on behalf of other class members in directing thelitigation. You do not need to be a Lead Plaintiff to be includedin the class. If you purchased Anadarko securities and wish todiscuss this litigation, or have any questions concerning thisNotice or your rights or interests with respect to these matters,please contact Gregory Frank at (800) 497-8076, (212) 682-1818, orvia e-mail at newcase@murrayfrank.com

CAMBRIDGE CREDIT: 1st Circuit Upholds $256MM Class Action Judgment------------------------------------------------------------------Morris Polich & Purdy LLP disclosed that, on July 27, 2010, theFirst Circuit Court of Appeal, including now-retired Supreme CourtJustice Souter, upheld a $256 million class action judgment in anappeal argued by MPP partner David Vendler, Esq. The case involvedclaims brought under the Credit Repair Organizations Act (CROA)(15U.S.C. Section 1679 et seq.) against John and Richard Puccio,former owners of what was one of the country's leading creditcounseling entities. The plaintiff's main theory of liability wasthat, while the entity advertised itself as a non-profitorganization with a charitable mission of helping consumersresolve their debt, it was actually run as a for-profit business,allowing its owners to collect over $50 million from theirstruggling clients.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 30, 2009, thecase "Zimmermann v. Cambridge Credit Counseling, Inc.," wasoriginally filed in 2003, and was initially dismissed on thedefendants' Rule 12 motion on the ground that the creditcounseling entity could not be held liable under the CROA due toits non-profit 501(c)(3) status. In a case of first impressionnationwide, however, the First Circuit reversed, holding thatcredit repair companies are not automatically excluded from thedefinition of a "credit repair organization" simply because theyare organized as non profit tax exempt entities. The court heldthat, in order to be immune from suit under the CROA, thedefendant must prove that it actually operates in a mannerconsistent with both of those statuses.

According to Mr. Vendler, "financially desperate consumers areeasy marks for this sales pitch, which has been hammering away onthe Internet, TV, and late-night radio for the past ten years:'Are you in debt? We are a non-profit organization that cannegotiate with your creditors to lower your interest rates andimprove your credit.'"

In its opinion, the First Circuit wrote: "When Cambridge helditself out as an organization that could help consumers "rebuild,""reestablish" and "restore" their credit, it operated as a "creditrepair organization." Having earlier established this samethreshold, the district court had pierced the corporate veil tofind the Puccios personally liable under Section 1679b(a)(3) ofCROA for their misrepresentation in offering credit repairservices as a non-profit entity. The First Circuit also noted withsome emphasis that "personal charges from a 'gentleman's club' andfor a yacht appeared on the Puccio companies' corporate creditcard bills."

As noted by the First Circuit, it is rare for plaintiffs to winsummary judgment, as their evidence on all points must be"conclusive." In this case, Mr. Vendler explains, the industrypractices were so questionable that plaintiffs were able to meetthis burden, making summary judgment totally appropriate. Mr.Vendler hopes that consumers will now be alerted to such sharppractices.

Morris Polich & Purdy LLP is a law firm that works with itsclients on a national basis. It represents clients in everystate, as well as many U.S. possessions. It also has a wealth ofinternational affiliations.

EMMIS COMMUNICATIONS: Faces 8 Class Suits on Going-Private Deal---------------------------------------------------------------Emmis Communications Corporation disclosed in a regulatory filingwith the Securities and Exchange Commission last week that as ofAugust 4, 2010, a total of eight putative class action complaintswere filed, six of which were filed in the Marion County SuperiorCourt of Indiana, one of which was filed in the United StatesDistrict Court of the Southern District of Indiana and one ofwhich was filed in the United States District Court of theSouthern District of New York, and each of which seeks, amongother things, injunctive relief against the bid by Jeffrey H.Smulyan, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President ofEmmis Communications, to take the Company private. The suitsallege breach of fiduciary duty.

JS Acquisition, Inc. -- whose equity securities are owned entirelyby Mr. Jeffrey H. Smulyan, the Chairman, Chief Executive Officerand President of Emmis Communications, and JS Acquisition, LLC, anIndiana limited liability company that is wholly owned by Mr.Smulyan -- is offering to purchase all of the outstanding sharesof Class A Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, of Emmis. TheOffer was announced April 26, 2010.

The Defendants in the Primich action have until August 9, 2010 torespond to the complaint.

On May 6, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Jarosclawicz action servedinitial discovery requests on Defendants.

On May 10, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Ross and McQueen actions movedto consolidate those two actions into one and also moved for theappointment of Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation and KrogerGardis & Regas, LLP as Interim Co-Lead Counsel. By order datedMay 11, 2010, the Court conditionally approved the consolidationand set a hearing for June 1, 2010 on the issue of lead counsel.

On May 14, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action served initialdiscovery requests on Defendants.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Stabosz action filed a Motionfor Expedited Response to certain document requests.

On May 20, 2010, Plaintiffs in the Hinkle, Jarosclawicz, andStabosz actions moved to consolidate those actions into theRoss/McQueen action.

On May 21, 2010, certain of the Defendants in the Ross actionfiled a Motion for Change of Venue from the Judge. By Order datedMay 24, 2010, the Court granted the motion, and a new judge hasqualified.

On May 26, 2010, the law firms representing the Stabosz and HinklePlaintiffs filed in the Ross, Stabosz, and Hinkle actions motionsto appoint Cohen & Malad LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as co-leadcounsel and in opposition to the appointment of Brower Piven andKroger Gardis & Regas, LLP as co-lead counsel.

On May 28, 2010, the law firms representing the plaintiffs in theRoss and McQueen cases filed a memorandum in opposition to theconsolidation of the Stabosz, Hinkle and Jarosclawicz cases andfurther moved to stay those two actions. In addition, those firmsmoved for expedited discovery from the defendants.

Also on May 28, 2010, the plaintiff in Hinkle filed an emergencymotion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants fromtaking any steps to complete the transaction. That plaintiff alsorequested expedited discovery from the defendants and the settingof an expedited briefing schedule.

On June 8, 2010, Defendants filed an Objection to Plaintiffs'Motion for Expedited Discovery. Also on June 8, Plaintiffs in theHinkle and Stabosz actions filed Amended Complaints.

On June 9, 2010, the Court in the Ross action granted Plaintiffs'Motion to Consolidate Related Actions, consolidating the Hinkle,McQueen, Jarosclawicz, and Stabosz actions into the Ross actionbefore Judge Moberly. The consolidated action was re- captioned Inre: Emmis Shareholder Litigation by order of the Court dated June15, 2010. Also, on June 9, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinklefiled a Reply in Further Support of Their Motions for ExpeditedDiscovery and Preliminary Injunction.

On June 10, 2010, Defendants moved to dismiss the fiveconsolidated purported class actions.

On June 11, 2010, Defendants filed a Sur-Reply in Opposition toMotions for Expedited Discovery by Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle.

On June 14, 2010, Plaintiffs Stabosz and Hinkle filed theirResponse to Defendants' Sur-Reply in Opposition to Motions forExpedited Discovery.

On June 15, 2010, the Court issued an Order Appointing Cohen &Malad, LLP and Wolf Popper LLP as Co-Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs,and also issued an Order Granting Plaintiff's Motion to ExpediteResponse to Document Requests and For Four Depositions ofDefendants and their Representatives Relating to Emergency Motionfor Preliminary Injunction. The parties currently are exchangingdiscovery in accordance with the latter order pursuant to anagreed-upon schedule.

On June 25, 2010, Alden filed a joinder in the Motion to Dismissfiled on June 10, 2010. The joinder was filed in the four actionsin which Alden was named as a defendant -- the Ross, Hinkle,McQueen, and Stabosz actions.

The parties agreed to a Stipulation and Proposed Order Relating tothe Scheduling of Depositions, Briefing, and Hearing onPlaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction andDefendants' Motion to Dismiss in In re: Emmis ShareholderLitigation, which was entered by the Court on July 2, 2010.Pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation, depositions were taken andconcluded by June 30, 2010.

On July 3, 2010, also pursuant to the Scheduling Stipulation,Plaintiffs served on Defendants their Memorandum of Law in Supportof Their Motion for Preliminary Injunction and in Opposition toDefendants' Motion to Dismiss. In accordance with the SchedulingStipulation, Defendants served their Brief Opposing Plaintiffs'Motion for Preliminary Injunction and their Reply Brief in Supportof their Motion to Dismiss Shareholder Cases on July 10, 2010.Plaintiffs filed their Reply Memorandum of Law in Support of theirMotion for Perliminary Injunction on July 14, 2010.

Also on July 14, 2010, Robert Frank voluntarily dismissed hislawsuit pending in the Marion County Superior Court. On July 19,2010, Robert Frank filed his second lawsuit in the SouthernDistrict of New York.

A hearing on Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in Inre: Emmis Shareholder Litigation was held on July 19, 2010. OnJuly 27, 2010, Judge Moberly denied the motion for preliminaryinjunction.

That same day, the Defendants in the Frank case, pending in theUnited States District Court for the Southern District of NewYork, filed a motion requesting a) dismissal of that action forimproper venue, b) transfer of the action to the United StatesDistrict Court for the Southern District of Indiana or c) a stayof the action pending resolution of the Primich case. No date fora hearing on that motion has been set. There is, however, a pre-trial conference set in the federal Frank case for August 19,2010, before the Honorable Judge Harold Baer, Jr.

In addition, several law firms and investor advocacy groups thathave not appeared in the above-listed lawsuits, including but notlimited to Finkelstein Thompson LLP, the Law Offices of Howard G.Smith, Levi & Korinsky, LLP, Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., Tripp LevyPLLC and the Shareholders Foundation, Inc., have commencedinvestigations into potential claims with respect to theTransactions."

About Emmis

Headquartered in Indianapolis, Indiana, Emmis CommunicationsCorporation -- http://www.emmis.com/-- owns and operates radio stations and magazine publications in the U.S. and in Europe.

At February 28, 2010, the Company had $498,168,000 in totalassets; $487,246,000 in total liabilities and $140,459,000 inSeries A Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock; and shareholders'deficit of $178,959,000. At February 28, 2010, the Company hadnon-controlling interests of $49,422,000 and total deficit of$129,537,000.

As of April 15, 2010, the Company had not paid the Preferred Stockdividend for six consecutive quarterly periods.

* * *

In April 2009, Moody's cut its corporate family rating on theCompany to 'Caa2'.

In May 2009, S&P raised its corporate credit rating on the Companyto 'CCC+'. In June, S&P withdrew the 'CCC+' Corp. Credit Ratingat the Company's request.

FISHER-PRICE: Recalls 110,000 Play 'n Go Campsite-------------------------------------------------The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation withFisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recallof about 96,000 Little People Play 'n Go Campsite (TM) in theUnited States and 14,000 in Canada. Consumers should stop usingrecalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The plastic Sonya Lee figure in the play set can break at thewaist, exposing small parts that pose a choking hazard to youngchildren.

The firm has received eight reports of the Sonya Lee figurebreaking. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Little People Play 'n Go Campsite. Theseven-piece plastic play set includes Sonya Lee, a tent and otheraccessories. Product number R6935 is printed on the toy'spackaging. The name Sonya Lee is printed on the underside of thefigure. Only Sonya Lee figures that bend at the waist, have agreen sweater and purple camera around the neck are included inthis recall. No other Sonya Lee figure is affected. The remainingpieces of the Little People Play 'n Go Campsite are not affected.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold throughmajor retailers including mass merchandisers, discount stores,department stores and toy stores nationwide and in Puerto Rico,and by online retailers from October 2009 through August 2010 forabout $15.

Consumers should immediately take the Campsite's Sonya Lee figureaway from children and contact Fisher-Price to arrange for thefigure's return in exchange for a free replacement figure. Foradditional information, contact Fisher-Price at (800) 432-5437anytime or visit the firm's Web site athttp://service.mattel.com/us/

GENERAL DYNAMICS: 401(k) Class Suit Settled For $15 Million-----------------------------------------------------------Robert Patrick, writing for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reportsthat a class-action lawsuit that alleged that tens of thousands ofparticipants in two General Dynamics 401K plans were chargedexcessive fees has been tentatively settled for $15.15 million,the parties announced late Wednesday.

The lawsuit, representing current and retired employees in theplans, was originally filed in federal court 2006 against GeneralDynamics Corp. and Fiduciary Asset Management LLC of Clayton, aswell as executives of both companies.

The suit alleges, among other things, that billions of dollarsworth of 401K business was handed to FAMCO without a competitivebidding process and that costs and fees for plan participants wereinflated.

Representatives of General Dynamics and FAMCO could not be reachedfor comment Thursday afternoon.

General Dynamics and FAMCO said in a joint statement with Mr.Schlicter that they have complied with all requirements of thefederal law governing the plan, the Employee Retirement IncomeSecurity Act of 1974, but said settlement was in the bestinterests of all parties.

The payout will come from insurance, and will be deposited intothe 401k accounts after costs and attorney's fees and subtracted,the statement says.

As part of the settlement, General Dynamics agreed to use anoutside consultant to review parts of the 401k plans and "enhanceddisclosure" of fees and expenses for the accounts, among otheragreements.

The settlement bars FAMCO from recommending itself as investmentmanager for the accounts or recommending investment into accountsit manages.

The settlement still requires approval of a number of parties,including a federal judge and a representative of the accountholders. A hearing was scheduled for Monday in federal court inEast St. Louis to begin that process.

FAMCO was founded in 1994 by pension fund managers at GeneralDynamics.

In 2007, the company was purchased by a Minneapolis investmentbanking firm, Piper Jaffray Cos.

GRANT & EISENHOFER: Sued for Concealing Existence of Fee Agreement------------------------------------------------------------------Richard P. Gielata, on behalf of himself and others similarlysituated v. Jaw W. Eisenhofer, and Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., CaseNo. 10-648 (D. Del. August 3, 2010), accuses lawyer Jay W.Eisenhofer and his law firm Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A. of stealing"hundreds of millions of dollars from their clients in 2007, whenthey and others were awarded nearly $500 million dollars in feesand expenses out of a $3.2 billion class action settlement fund."

Mr. Gielata explains that defendants served as class counsel In reTyco, Int'l, Ltd., Sec. Litig., a securities class action. In2007, class action settlements totaling $3.2 billion wereannounced in the Tyco Litigation. On October 22, 2007, defendantsand the other class counsel requested attorney's fees of 14.5% ofthe $3.2 billion class action settlements of the Tyco Litigation,amounting to at least $464 million in attorneys' fees, when a feeagreement, dated January 8, 2004, expressly limited defendants'fee request to no more than 7.8% of the total class recovery inthe Tyco Litigation. Mr. Gielata says that defendants hadconcealed the existence of the Fee Agreement with lead plaintiffTeachers' Retirement System of Louisiana in the Tyco Litigationfrom the Court. Under the tiered arrangement set forth in the FeeAgreement, the requested fee in the Tyco Litigation should nothave exceeded $248,625,000 ($215,375,000 less than what thedefendants requested).

Mr. Gielata, a member of the certified class in the TycoLitigation, says defendants breached their fiduciary duty tomembers of the class by concealing the existence of the FeeAgreement and by requesting a fee in excess of the maximum feeagreed upon, and in so doing, unjustly enriched themselves at theexpense of the class members. Plaintiff and the class membersseek damages of not less than $215 million.

This recall involves recall involves Kawasaki 2010 model yearKLX110CAF and KLX110DAF off-road motorcycles. They were sold ingreen and have Kawasaki written on the sides of the fuel tank.Pictures of the recalled products are available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in Thailand and soldthrough Kawasaki dealers nationwide from August 2009 throughFebruary 2010 for about $2,100.

Consumers should stop using these vehicles immediately and contacta local Kawasaki Motorcycle dealer to schedule an appointment fora free repair. The company has attempted to contact all knownusers. For more information, consumers can contact Kawasaki toll-free at (866) 802-9381 between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m., Pacific Time,Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.kawasaki.com/

Legs on the Belle vanity bench can detach at the weld and allowthe bench to collapse, posing a fall hazard to consumers.

LaMont has received two reports of a leg on the vanity benchdetaching at the weld, causing the consumer to fall and sustainminor bruising.

This recall involves Belle vanity benches with a scroll design andpadded seat. The wrought iron vanity bench is about 21 3/4 inchesfrom floor to top of rail. The padded seat has an 18 3/4 inchwide off-white damask cover. Pictures of the recalled productsare available at:

The recalled products were manufactured in China and soldexclusively at Tuesday Morning stores nationwide from May 2010through June 2010 for about $70.

Consumers should immediately stop using the Belle vanity benchesand return the product to any Tuesday Morning store for a refund.Consumers can also mail the product directly to LaMont for arefund. Consumers returning the product to LaMont should includein the package, the bench, name, mailing address and phone number.The package should be sent to LaMont Limited, Customer Service,1530 North Bluff Road, Burlington, Iowa 52601. For additionalinformation, contact Tuesday Morning at (800) 457-0099 or LaMontat (800) 553-5261 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Central Time,Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site athttp://www.shop.tuesdaymorning.com or http://www.lamontlimited.com/

In a decision made public Thursday, Manhattan state Supreme CourtJustice Richard Lowe III ruled against a motion to dismiss thecase against MetLife, the complex's former owner.

MetLife argued that a 2009 New York Court of Appeals decision inthe case that apartments could not be luxury decontrolled whilethey received certain tax benefits should not be appliedretroactively, according to court papers.

MetLife sold the property in 2006 to PCV ST Owner LP, anotherdefendant. Tishman Speyer Properties LP, which bought thedevelopment in 2006, also is a defendant.

"We're very pleased with the ruling. It does a tremendous justicefor the tenants," said Alex Schmidt, Esq., attorney for thetenants. "Now they'll have the right to try to recover the $200million in overcharges."

Mitchell Posilkin, Esq., general counsel for the RentStabilization Association, which represents New York propertyowners, called the decision potentially "devastating" for manyowners.

"In its narrowest form, this decision keeps MetLife as the priorowner of Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper in the case," said Ms.Posilkin. "What it means for other owners in J-51 buildings whereunits were de-regulated is that there are now potentiallysignificant claims against their properties."

Tax Benefits

The suit is based on the complex's owners taking advantage of theluxury decontrol provisions of New York's Rent Stabilization lawby charging tenants rents above stabilized levels while alsoreceiving tax benefits known as J-51, according to Judge Lowe'sdecision.

The retroactive application of the court of appeals decision "isneither unexpected and indefensible" Judge Lowe wrote in denyingthe motion to dismiss. Nor was there "an arbitrary change in thelaw," as MetLife argued, he said.

"It is a win for tenants because, if there was any reason to doubtthat tenants were entitled to damages going backward, that pointis now settled," said Daniel Garodnick, a New York City Councilmember who lives at Peter Cooper.

Christopher Breslin, a MetLife spokesman, said in an e-mail that"we are studying the opinion in order to determine our nextsteps."

Missed Payment

The 80-acre Stuyvesant Town-Peter Cooper Village, home to morethan 11,000 housing units, can be foreclosed on and sold atauction, according to documents filed in U.S. District Court inManhattan in June.

Tishman Speyer and BlackRock Inc. bought the developments for $5.4billion in 2006 near the top of the U.S. real estate boom. Theowners missed a payment on the $3 billion senior mortgage inJanuary after failing to raise rents as fast as anticipated.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: RJR Continues to Defend "Scott" Action---------------------------------------------------------R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company continues to defend the matter Scottv. American Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'sJuly 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On Nov. 5, 1998, in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., a case filed inMay 1996 in District Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the trialcourt certified a medical monitoring or smoking cessation class ofLouisiana residents who were smokers on or before May 24, 1996, inan action brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking to recover an unspecifiedamount of compensatory and punitive damages.

On July 28, 2003, the jury returned a verdict in favor of thedefendants on the plaintiffs' claim for medical monitoring andfound that cigarettes were not defectively designed. However, thejury also made certain findings against the defendants on claimsrelating to fraud, conspiracy, marketing to minors and smokingcessation. Notwithstanding these findings, this portion of thetrial did not determine liability as to any class member or classrepresentative. What primarily remained in the case was a class-wide claim that the defendants pay for a program to help peoplestop smoking.

On May 21, 2004, the jury returned a verdict in the amount of $591million on the class's claim for a smoking cessation program. OnSept. 29, 2004, the defendants posted a $50 million bond, pursuantto legislation that limits the amount of the bond to $50 millioncollectively for MSA signatories, and noticed their appeal. RJRTobacco posted $25 million (the portions for RJR Tobacco and B&W)towards the bond.

On Feb. 7, 2007, the Louisiana Court of Appeals upheld the classcertification and found the defendants responsible for fundingsmoking cessation for eligible class members. The appellate courtalso ruled, however, that the defendants were not liable for anypost-1988 claims, rejected the award of prejudgment interest andstruck eight of the 12 components of the smoking cessationprogram.

In particular, the appellate court ruled that no class member,who began smoking after Sept. 1, 1988, could receive any relief,and that only those smokers, whose claims accrued on or beforeSept. 1, 1988, would be eligible for the smoking cessationprogram.

The plaintiffs have expressly represented to the trial court thatnone of their claims accrued before 1988 and that the class claimsdid not accrue until around 1996, when the case was filed. Thedefendants' application for writ of certiorari with the LouisianaSupreme Court was denied on Jan. 7, 2008.

The defendants' petition for writ of certiorari with the U.S.Supreme Court was denied on June 10, 2008.

On July 21, 2008, the trial court entered an amended judgment inthe case. The court found that the defendants are jointly andseverally liable for funding the cost of a court-supervisedsmoking cessation program and ordered the defendants to depositapproximately $263 million together with interest from June 30,2004, into a trust for the funding of the program. The court alsostated that it would favorably consider a motion to return todefendants a portion of unused funds at the close of each programyear in the event the monies allocated for the preceding programyear were not fully expended because of a reduction in class sizeor underutilization by the remaining plaintiffs.

On Dec. 15, 2008, the trial court judge signed an order grantingthe defendants an appeal from the amended judgment.

On April 23, 2010, the court of appeals amended but largelyaffirmed the trial court's July 21, 2008 judgment. Thedefendants' motion for rehearing was denied on May 12, 2010.

On June 11, 2010, the defendants filed an application for writ ofcertiorari or review with the Louisiana Supreme Court. Briefingis underway.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "Brown" Scheduled for May 6-------------------------------------------------------The trial in the matter Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., isscheduled to begin in May 6, 2011, according to Reynolds AmericanInc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

On April 11, 2001, in Brown v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a casefiled in June 1997 in Superior Court, San Diego County,California, the court granted in part the plaintiffs' motion forcertification of a class composed of residents of California whosmoked at least one of the defendants' cigarettes from June 10,1993 through April 23, 2001, and who were exposed to thedefendants' marketing and advertising activities in California.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarettemanufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, seeking to recoverrestitution, disgorgement of profits and other equitable reliefunder California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 etseq. and Section 17500 et seq. Certification was granted as tothe plaintiffs' claims that the defendants violated Section 17200of the California Business and Professions Code pertaining tounfair competition.

The court, however, refused to certify the class under theCalifornia Legal Remedies Act and on the plaintiffs' common lawclaims.

On March 7, 2005, the court granted the defendants' motion todecertify the class.

On Sept. 5, 2006, the California Court of Appeal affirmed thejudge's order decertifying the class.

On Nov. 1, 2006, the plaintiffs' petition for review with theCalifornia Supreme Court was granted.

On May 18, 2009, the California Supreme Court reversed thedecision issued by the trial court and affirmed by the CaliforniaCourt of Appeal that decertified the class to the extent that itwas based upon the conclusion that all class members were requiredto demonstrate Proposition 64 standing, and remanded the case tothe trial court for further proceedings regarding whether theclass representatives have, or can demonstrate, standing.

On March 10, 2010, the California Superior Court found that theplaintiffs' "lights" claims were not preempted by the FederalCigarette Labeling and Advertising Act, rendered the court's Sept.30, 2004 ruling on the issue no longer viable, and denied thedefendants' second motion for summary judgment.

Trial is scheduled to begin May 6, 2011.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Court Okays Dismissal of "Sateriale" Suit------------------------------------------------------------The U.S. District Court for the Central District of Californiagranted R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company's motion to dismiss thecorrected second amended complaint in the matter Sateriale v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., according to Reynolds American Inc.'sJuly 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities andExchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Sateriale v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a class action filedin November 2009 in the U.S. District Court for the CentralDistrict of California, the plaintiffs brought the case on behalfof all persons who tried unsuccessfully to redeem Camel Cashcertificates from 1991 through March 31, 2007, or who held CamelCash certificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs allege that in response to the defendants' actionto discontinue redemption of Camel Cash as of March 31, 2007,customers, like the plaintiffs, attempted to exchange their CamelCash for merchandise and that the defendants, however, did nothave any merchandise to exchange for Camel Cash.

On Jan. 21, 2010, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss. OnFeb. 22, 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint.

The class definition changed to a class consisting of all personswho reside in the U.S. and tried unsuccessfully to redeem CamelCash certificate from Oct. 1, 2006 (six months before thedefendant ended the Camel Cash program) or who held Camel Cashcertificates as of March 31, 2007.

The plaintiffs also brought the class on behalf of a proposedCalifornia subclass, consisting of all California residentsmeeting the same criteria.

On May 3, 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the amendedcomplaint for lack of jurisdiction over subject matter and,alternatively, for failure to state a claim was granted with leaveto amend.

On May 7, 2010, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,and on May 24, 2010, filed a corrected second amended complaint.

On July 12, 2010, RJR Tobacco's motion to dismiss the correctedsecond amended complaint was granted with leave to amend.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

On Oct. 11, 2007, the Illinois Fifth District Court of Appealsdismissed RJR Tobacco's appeal of the denial of its emergencystay/supremacy order request and remanded the case to the circuitcourt. There is currently no activity in the case.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

A "lights" class-action case is pending against each of RJRTobacco and B&W in Missouri. In Collora v. R. J. Reynolds TobaccoCo., a case filed in May 2000 in Circuit Court, St. Louis County,Missouri, a judge in St. Louis certified a class on Dec. 31, 2003.

On April 9, 2007, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion toreassign Collora and these cases to a single general division:Craft v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc. and Black v. Brown &Williamson Tobacco Corp.

On April 16, 2008, the court stayed the case pending U.S. SupremeCourt review in Good v. Altria Group, Inc., a "lights" class-action pending against Altria and Philip Morris USA. A nominaltrial date of January 10, 2011 has been scheduled.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Fourth Amended Suit Against RJR Dismissed------------------------------------------------------------A fourth amended complaint where R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company isdefendant has been dismissed, according to Reynolds AmericanInc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Cleary v. Philip Morris, Inc., a case filed in June 1998, andpending in Circuit Court, Cook County, Illinois, the plaintiffsfiled their motion for class certification on Dec. 21, 2001, in anaction brought against the major U.S. cigarette manufacturers,including RJR Tobacco and B&W.

The case was brought on behalf of persons who have allegedly beeninjured by:

(2) the defendants' alleged acts of targeting their advertising and marketing to minors, and

(3) the defendants' claimed breach of the public right to defendants' compliance with the laws prohibiting the distribution of cigarettes to minors.

The plaintiffs requested that the defendants be required todisgorge all profits unjustly received through their sale ofcigarettes to plaintiffs and the class, which in no event will begreater than $75,000 per each class member, inclusive of punitivedamages, interest and costs.

On March 27, 2006, the court dismissed count V, public nuisance,and count VI, unjust enrichment. The plaintiffs filed an amendedcomplaint on March 3, 2009, to add a claim of unjust enrichmentand to include in the class individuals who smoked "light"cigarettes.

RJR Tobacco and B&W answered the amended complaint on March 31,2009. On July 5, 2009, the plaintiffs filed an additional motionfor class certification.On Sept. 8, 2009, the court granted the defendants' motion forsummary judgment on the pleadings concerning the "lights" claimsas to all defendants other than Philip Morris.

On October 30, 2009, certain defendants filed a motion for summaryjudgment on plaintiffs' youth-marketing claims.

On Feb. 22, 2010, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion forclass certification of all three putative classes. However, thecourt ruled that the plaintiffs may reinstate the class dealingwith the conspiracy to conceal the addictive nature of nicotine ifthey identify a new class representative.

On April 18, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion tofile a fourth amended complaint and withdraw the motion toreinstate count I by identifying a new plaintiff. On May 7, 2010,the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' fourthamended complaint, which was granted on June 22, 2010.

The plaintiffs have indicated that they intend to appeal.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Trial in "VanDyke" Suit Scheduled on March 11----------------------------------------------------------------Trial in the matter VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., hasbeen scheduled for March 11, 2011, according to Reynolds AmericanInc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In VanDyke v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in August2009 in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexicoagainst RJR Tobacco and RAI, the plaintiffs brought the case onbehalf of all New Mexico residents who from July 1, 2004, to thedate of judgment, purchased, not for resale, the defendants'cigarettes labeled as "lights" or "ultra lights."

The plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation, breach ofexpress warranty, breach of implied warranties of merchantabilityand of fitness for a particular purpose, violations of the NewMexico Unfair Practices Act, unjust enrichment, negligence andgross negligence. The plaintiffs seek a variety of damages,including actual, compensatory and consequential damages to theplaintiff and the class but not damages for personal injury orhealth-care claims.

Trial has been scheduled for March 11, 2011.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: Continues to Defend "Shaffer" in Arizona-----------------------------------------------------------Reynolds American Inc. and R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company defendthe matter Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., pending in theU.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, according to thecompany's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securitiesand Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30, 2010.

In Shaffer v. R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., a case filed in October2009 in the Superior Court of Pima County, Arizona against RJRTobacco, RAI and other defendants, the plaintiffs brought the caseon behalf of all persons residing in Arizona who purchased, notfor resale, defendants' cigarettes labeled as "light" or "ultra-light" from the date of the defendants' first sales of suchcigarettes in Arizona to the date of judgment.

On Nov. 13, 2009, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.District Court for the District of Arizona. On Nov. 30, 2009, RJRTobacco and RAI filed their answers to the complaint.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Young" Suit Against RJR Remains Stayed----------------------------------------------------------The matter Young v. American Tobacco Co., where R.J. ReynoldsTobacco Company is a defendant, remains stayed pending outcome ofthe appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., according toReynolds American Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with theU.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June30, 2010.

In Young v. American Tobacco Co., Inc., a case filed in November1997 in Circuit Court, Orleans Parish, Louisiana, the plaintiffsbrought an ETS class action against U.S. cigarette manufacturers,including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S.cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, on behalf of all residentsof Louisiana who, though not themselves cigarette smokers, havebeen exposed to secondhand smoke from cigarettes which weremanufactured by the defendants, and who allegedly suffered injuryas a result of that exposure.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount ofcompensatory and punitive damages.

On Oct. 13, 2004, the trial court stayed this case pending theoutcome of the appeal in Scott v. American Tobacco Co., Inc.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

In Parsons v. A C & S, Inc., a case filed in February 1998 inCircuit Court, Ohio County, West Virginia, the plaintiff suedasbestos manufacturers, U.S. cigarette manufacturers, includingRJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companies of U.S. cigarettemanufacturers, including RJR, seeking to recover $1 million incompensatory and punitive damages individually and an unspecifiedamount for the class in both compensatory and punitive damages.The class was brought on behalf of persons who allegedly havepersonal injury claims arising from their exposure to respirableasbestos fibers and cigarette smoke.

The plaintiffs allege that Mrs. Parsons' use of tobacco productsand exposure to asbestos products caused her to develop lungcancer and to become addicted to tobacco. The case has beenstayed pending a final resolution of the plaintiffs' motion torefer tobacco litigation to the judicial panel on multi-districtlitigation filed in In Re: Tobacco Litigation in the Supreme Courtof Appeals of West Virginia.

On Dec. 26, 2000, three defendants, Nitral Liquidators, Inc.,Desseaux Corporation of North American and Armstrong WorldIndustries, filed bankruptcy petitions in the U.S. BankruptcyCourt for the District of Delaware, In re Armstrong WorldIndustries, Inc. Pursuant to section 362(a) of the BankruptcyCode, Parsons is automatically stayed with respect to alldefendants.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in ReynoldsAmerican Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

The case was filed in December 1998 in Circuit Court, JacksonCounty, Missouri, the defendants removed the case to the U.S.District Court for the Western District of Missouri on Feb. 16,1999.

The action was brought against the major U.S. cigarettemanufacturers, including RJR Tobacco and B&W, and parent companiesof U.S. cigarette manufacturers, including RJR, by tobacco productusers and purchasers on behalf of all similarly situated Missouriconsumers. The plaintiffs allege that their use of thedefendants' tobacco products has caused them to become addicted tonicotine.

The plaintiffs seek to recover an unspecified amount ofcompensatory and punitive damages. The case was remanded to theCircuit Court on Feb. 17, 1999.

There has been limited activity in this case.

No further updates on the matter were disclosed in ReynoldsAmerican Inc.'s July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2010.

Reynolds American Inc. -- http://www.ReynoldsAmerican.com/-- is the parent company of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company; AmericanSnuff Company, LLC; Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc.; andNiconovum AB. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is the second-largestU.S. tobacco company. The company's brands include five of the 10best-selling cigarettes in the United States: Camel, Pall Mall,Winston, Doral and Kool. American Snuff Company, LLC is thenation's second-largest manufacturer of smokeless tobaccoproducts. Its leading brands are Kodiak, Grizzly and LeviGarrett. American Snuff Co. also sells and distributes a varietyof tobacco products manufactured by Lane, Limited, includingWinchester and Captain Black little cigars, and Bugler roll-your-own tobacco. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. manufacturesNatural American Spirit cigarettes and other additive-free tobaccoproducts, and manages and markets other super-premium brands.Niconovum AB markets innovative nicotine replacement therapyproducts in Sweden and Denmark under the Zonnic brand name.

STI PREPAID: Settles Calling Card Class Action for $7.4 Million---------------------------------------------------------------The law firms of Carella, Byrne, Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello,Nagel Rice, and Freed & Weiss, along with STI Phonecard, Inc.,Telco Group, Inc., VOIP Enterprises, Inc., and STi Prepaid, LLC,jointly disclosed Thursday that on July 13, 2010, the UnitedStates District Court for the District of New Jersey preliminarilyapproved a settlement involving claims related to their prepaidcalling cards. In addition to providing refunds to class membersand prospective promotions in the form of free and/or discountedminutes to be given away to Defendants' calling card consumers,Defendants have agreed to certain injunctive relief ensuringproper disclosures of rates, fees, taxes, surcharges or otheramounts charged, as well as other business practice commitments tothe benefit of its calling card customers. Final approval of thesettlement is to be determined after a final fairness hearing tobe held on November 16, 2010.

The summary notice of the settlement is as follows:

Legal Notice

If You Purchased a Prepaid or Rechargeable Calling Card BeforeJuly 13, 2010 You May Get Benefits from a Class Action Settlement

The lawsuit claims that Defendants failed to fully informconsumers about applicable rates and charges on prepaid andrechargeable calling cards, which allegedly violated state laws.Defendants deny they did anything wrong.

Am I Included?

You are included in the Settlement if you purchased an eligibleSTI calling card in the U.S. that was sold or distributed by STIbefore July 13, 2010. The Settlement includes certain cards thatdo not have the STI name on them. A complete list of eligiblecalling cards is available on the websites listed below.

What Does The Settlement Provide?

Defendants will provide refunds up to $7,400,000. The refundswill be given through the use of calling card Refund PersonalIdentification Numbers ("Refund PINs"). These Refund PINs can beused to make domestic calls and international calls to certainlocations. A complete list of locations is available on thewebsite. The amount you are entitled to receive depends on thetotal number of valid claims submitted. In addition, Defendantswill provide up to $1,000,000 in future free or reduced-rateminutes.

How Do I Get A Refund?

You need to file a Claim Form to get a refund from the Settlement.You have 6 months to file a claim. The exact date depends on theCourt, but could begin as early as November 1, 2010. To find outwhen the claims process will start, visit the websites, which arelisted below.

What Are My Other Legal Rights?

* Remain in the Settlement: You will be bound by the terms of the Settlement and give up your right to sue Defendants. To receive any refund you must submit a claim.

* Get out of the Settlement: If you wish to keep your right to sue Defendants, you must exclude yourself by October 15, 2010.

* Remain in the Settlement and Object: If you stay in the Settlement, you can object to it by October 15, 2010. You give up your right to sue and are bound by all Court orders even if your objection is rejected.

The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey will hold ahearing in the case, Torres-Hernandez and Ramirez v. STI PrepaidLLC, et al., Civil Action No. 08-1089, on November 16, 2010 toconsider whether to approve the Settlement and a request forattorneys' fees and expenses of up to $2,050,0000. You may ask toappear and speak at the hearing, or you may hire a lawyer torequest to appear and speak at the hearing, at your own expense.

SUPER VALU: Judge Hears Arguments for Final Settlement------------------------------------------------------Amelia Flood, writing for The Madison/St. Clair Record, reportsthat a class action case brought against the owner of the Shop 'nSave and Jewel/Osco grocery chains was set for final settlementapproval on Friday before Madison County Circuit Judge AndreasMatoesian.

The class action was brought by lead plaintiff Mary Voyles onbehalf of customers who cashed checks at Super Valu Inc.'s storesbetween January 2007 and January 2009.

UNITED STATES: Census Bureau Faces Suit Over Hiring Practices-------------------------------------------------------------Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports thatcivil rights groups on Thursday accused the U.S. Census Bureau ofdiscrimination in its hiring of more than a million temporaryworkers to conduct the 2010 census, saying it ignored a warningfrom a federal agency that its hiring practices might violate theCivil Rights Act.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the Center forConstitutional Rights and the Public Citizen Litigation Group wereamong groups that sued the secretary of the U.S. Department ofCommerce in April to end the hiring practices and obtain back payfor plaintiffs. They beefed up the lawsuit Thursday with newclaims and plaintiffs.

The lawsuit, which seeks class action status in U.S. DistrictCourt in Manhattan, alleges the Census Bureau in hiring temporaryworkers over the past two years illegally screened out applicantswith often decades-old arrest records for minor offenses or thosewho were arrested but never convicted. It accuses the bureau, adivision of the Department of Commerce, of discriminating againstmore than 100,000 blacks, Latinos and Native Americans, who aremore likely to have arrest records than whites.

In court papers, the government challenged the lawsuit onprocedural grounds, saying two named plaintiffs did not file theirdiscrimination complaints in the allowable time period. OnThursday, the civil rights groups added three new named plaintiffsto their lawsuit.

Among new evidence in the lawsuit was a July 10, 2009, letter fromthe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to the Commercesecretary and Census Bureau acting director citing complaints thatthe bureau had notified census worker applicants that arrestrecords or convictions would disqualify them from employmentunless they could prove the records were incorrect.

"This information suggests that the Census Bureau's approach isoverbroad and may run afoul of Title VII of the Civil Rights Actof 1964," wrote Stuart J. Ishimaru, then acting chairman of theEEOC, which enforces federal anti-discrimination laws amongprivate employers.

In his letter, Mr. Ishimaru, currently one of five EEOCcommissioners, warned that the Census Bureau should not disqualifya person based on an arrest record unless there is a conviction.

Even then, Mr. Ishimaru added, employers should weigh the natureand gravity of the offense or conduct, the amount of time that hadpassed since the arrest or conviction and completion of sentenceand the nature of the job being sought.

The letter attacked the Census Bureau's practice of requiringpeople who apply to be census workers and are found to havearrests on their records to provide official court records orfingerprints to challenge the bureau information within 30 days.Mr. Ishimaru said the practice was inconsistent with the bureau'sobligation under Title VII to objectively assess applicants'criminal histories.

"The Census Bureau should not rely on arrest records for whichthere was no conviction, and the Census Bureau itself shouldinquire as to whether the alleged conduct took place," Mr.Ishimaru said in the letter. "If the individual did engage in theconduct alleged, moreover, the Census Bureau should not excludepeople from employment for offenses that do not predict anunacceptable risk."

Attorney Samuel Miller, who represents plaintiffs in the lawsuit,said it was surprising to see that the Census Bureau had beenwarned nearly a year ago that its practices might violate civilrights laws.

"They just continued business as usual," he said. "When we firststarted hearing from people that this was happening to them, Ithought maybe this was just bureaucracy in action. The more we'velearned, I can't believe that anymore. I think at this point thesystem was designed to discriminate."

He said it was shocking to learn that 750,000 applicants forcensus worker jobs were sent letters notifying them of criminalrecords and 93 percent of them did not respond to the letters. Hesaid the Census Bureau got its information from the FBI database,which has well over 20 percent of the population -- more than 70million people -- listed.

"The Census Bureau designed this system in 2000 so they justwouldn't have to deal with people who have ever been arrested,"Mr. Miller said.

The lawsuit said the FBI database included people who were quicklyreleased by police after it was discovered they were wronglypicked up and those found not guilty or whose cases were droppedfor lack of evidence.

Lawmakers from both parties say they support resolving the long-standing claims of discrimination and mistreatment by federalagencies. But the funding has been caught up for months in afight over spending and deficits, with Republicans and Democratsarguing over how to pay for them.

Republicans have repeatedly blocked Democratic proposals and didso again Thursday. This time, Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., arguedthat the settlement in the Indian case needs work and made acounter offer that would change parts of it.

An exasperated Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., responded that it's notCongress' role to renegotiate the case, which has been in courtfor 14 years and which the Obama administration is under a court-ordered deadline to resolve.

"My colleague from Wyoming, I think, wishes he were one of thenegotiators," Sen. Dorgan said. "Nobody in Congress was anegotiator . . . the question is whether we will meet ourresponsibility."

In the Indian case, at least 300,000 Native Americans claim theywere swindled out of royalties overseen by the Interior Departmentsince 1887 for things like oil, gas, grazing and timber. Theywould share a $3.4 billion settlement in a class-action lawsuitoriginally filed in 1996 by Elouise Cobell, a member of theBlackfeet Tribe from Browning, Mont.

For the black farmers, it is the second round of funding from aclass-action lawsuit originally settled in 1999 over allegationsof widespread discrimination by local Agriculture Departmentoffices in awarding loans and other aid. It is known as thePigford case, named after Timothy Pigford, a black farmer fromNorth Carolina who was an original plaintiff.

The government already has paid out more than $1 billion to about16,000 farmers, with most getting payments of about $50,000. Thenew money is intended for people -- some estimates say 70,000 or80,000 -- who were denied earlier payments because they misseddeadlines for filing. The amount of money each would get dependson how many claims are successfully filed.

Passing the funding for the two cases would fulfill a campaignpromise by President Barack Obama to resolve long-festeringcomplaints.

John Boyd, head of the National Black Farmers Association, saidboth parties share the blame of leaving the work undone before theSenate adjourned for it's month-long August recess. "It's justpartisan division, one party against another," he said. "It's anembarrassment for the American people that they can't get a billpassed that everybody supports."

UNIVERSAL PLACEMENT: Faces Suit Over Filipino Teachers Recruitment------------------------------------------------------------------Melinda Deslatte and Kevin McGill, writing for The AssociatedPress, report that a class-action lawsuit filed Thursday accuses aLos Angeles-based company of a human trafficking scheme to bringhundreds of Filipino teachers to Louisiana public schools usingexploitative contracts that charged them excessive, illegal fees.

Universal Placement International Inc. and its owner LourdesNavarro are accused of racketeering and fraud in a lawsuit thatthe American Federation of Teachers and the Southern Poverty LawCenter said they filed in a California federal court on behalf of350 teachers.

"We were herded onto a path, a slowly constricting path, where themoment you realize that something is not right, you were alreadypast the point of no return," said Ingrid Cruz, one of theteachers named as a plaintiff in the case, reading from a preparedstatement. Ms. Cruz teaches science and robotics classes at aBaton Rouge-area middle school.

The lawsuit says the company illegally required the teachers topay thousands of dollars in fees to be hired to jobs mainly inEast Baton Rouge Parish, but also in Caddo, Jefferson and otherparishes and in state-run schools in New Orleans.

Teachers were saddled with crippling debts, placed into shoddyhousing and threatened with deportation if they complained, saidDaniel McNeil, Esq., a lawyer for the AFT, equating the conditionsto forced labor and indentured servitude.

"This is far closer to slavery than we should be willing totolerate," said Mary Bauer, legal director of the Southern PovertyLaw Center.

Questions to Universal Placement International about the lawsuitwere directed to a Los Angeles-based attorney who didn'timmediately return a phone call Thursday from The AssociatedPress.

Each teacher had to pay about $16,000 before ever leaving thePhilippines -- five times the average annual household income inthe country, the lawsuit alleges. If they couldn't afford thefees, teachers borrowed money, in many instances from lendersrecommended by the recruiting firm who charged hefty interestrates, attorneys for the teachers union and law center said.

More fees and expensive legal entanglements followed once theteachers arrived in the United States, the lawsuit claims, likecontracts in which the teachers agreed to pay a percentage oftheir monthly income to Universal and fees for arranging housing.Passports and visas were confiscated to ensure the fees would bepaid, the lawsuit says.

Also named in the lawsuit is the East Baton Rouge Parish SchoolBoard and several current and former school system administrators,including former Superintendent Charlotte Placide. They areaccused of ignoring the alleged abuses and in some cases assistingthe recruiting company with illegal behavior.

"It was more than turning a blind eye. They actively participatedin what was going on," Ms. Bauer said.

A spokesman for the EBR Parish School System issued a statementsaying the system hasn't officially been served with the lawsuitand couldn't yet respond to the allegations.

"The school system values all of its employees and takes everyprecaution to ensure their tenure in our school district is apositive and mutually beneficial experience for the employee andthe students they serve," said Chris Trahan, system communicationsdirector.

Complaints about Universal Placement International and Navarrodate back to last October, when the Louisiana Federation ofTeachers filed complaints with state authorities alleging thecompany was operating illegally in the state and charging theteachers exorbitant fees.

In April, a state labor department judge ordered the company torefund fees that the LFT estimates will total $1.8 million. Thecompany's attorney said that ruling would be appealed.

e prime was in the business of natural gas trading and marketingalthough e prime has not engaged in natural gas trading ormarketing activities since 2003. Thirteen lawsuits have beencommenced against e prime and Xcel Energy (and NSP-Wisconsin, inone instance); alleging fraud and anticompetitive activities inconspiring to restrain the trade of natural gas and manipulatenatural gas prices.

The initial gas-trading lawsuit, a purported class action broughtby wholesale natural gas purchasers, was filed in November 2003 inthe U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California. eprime is one of several defendants named in the complaint.

This case is captioned Texas-Ohio Energy vs. CenterPoint Energy etal.

The other twelve cases arising out of the same or similar set offacts were filed. Many of these cases involve multiple defendantsand have been transferred to Judge Phillip Pro of the U. S.District Court in Nevada, who is the judge assigned to the WesternArea Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litigation.

No further details regarding the Texas-Ohio Energy Action weredisclosed in Xcel Energy's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing withthe U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter endedJune 30, 2010.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S.

XCEL ENERGY: District Court Dismissal Ruling Reinstated-------------------------------------------------------The decision of the U.S. District Court in the Southern Districtof Mississippi dismissing a suit against Xcel Energy, Inc., hasbeen reinstated after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FifthCircuit ruled that it lacked a quorom to hear the case, accordingto the company's July 30, 2010, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended June 30,2010.

In 2006, Xcel Energy received notice of a purported class actionlawsuit filed in U. S. District Court in the Southern District ofMississippi. The lawsuit names more than 45 oil, chemical andutility companies, including Xcel Energy, as defendants andalleges that defendants' CO2 emissions "were a proximate anddirect cause of the increase in the destructive capacity ofHurricane Katrina."

Plaintiffs allege in support of their claim, several legaltheories, including negligence and public and private nuisance andseek damages related to the loss resulting from the hurricane.

In August 2007, the court dismissed the lawsuit in its entiretyagainst all defendants on constitutional grounds.

Plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U. S. Court of Appealsfor the Fifth Circuit.

On Oct. 16, 2009, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitreversed the district court decision, in part, concluding that theplaintiffs pleaded sufficient facts to overcome the constitutionalchallenges that formed the basis for dismissal by the districtcourt.

A subsequent petition by defendants, including Xcel Energy, for enbanc review was granted.

On May 28, 2010, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuitruled that it lacked an en banc quorum of nine active members tohear the case. It dismissed the appeal, which resulted in thereinstatement of the district court's opinion dismissing the case.

The suit is Comer vs. Xcel Energy Inc. et al.

Minnesota-based Xcel Energy, Inc. -- http://www.xcelenergy.com/-- is a holding company engaged in the utility business in the U.S.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale orpublication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronicre-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without priorwritten permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed tobe reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered viae-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the samefirm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereofare $25 each. For subscription information, contact ChristopherBeard at 240/629-3300.